Necessity of trial to prove innocence and restore social status

1. The respondent herein / complainant has filed criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner stating that the accused, viz., Tejaram had filed a false complaint before the H-6, Police Station stating that the respondent herein had stolen gold ornaments. As such, the concerned police registered a criminal case in Crime No.792 of 2002, for the offence under Section 380 of I.P.C. On the strength of the said complaint, she had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. This incident had been published in the print media and as such her reputation had been tarnished. Thereafter, the criminal case had not been proved against her and the said jewels were recovered after two months from the shop itself. Therefore, the respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 211 of IPC, to punish the accused/revision petitioner herein. The case had been taken on file as C.C.No.10609 of 2005, on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and summons was issued to the revision petitioner herein.

2. At this juncture, the revision petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2006, to discharge him from the said criminal case. The same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Against the said dismissal order, the revision has been filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the complainant did not disclose anything about the nature of incident. Further, the complainant had visited the petitioner's shop in the first week of August 2004. The Sub-Inspector of Police had registered a criminal case in Crime No.792 of 2002 since three pairs of gold studs weighing 4 grams each were found to be missing. The learned counsel further contended that the Sub Inspector of Police had proceeded in the criminal case with the respondent herein and failed to prove the case against her. The respondent also had been acquitted on the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the private complaint levelled against the revision petitioner herein is not maintainable.

4. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Magistrate. This Court is of the further view that the respondent, viz, Baby has stated in her complaint that she is a social worker and an elected councilor of ward No.4 in North Chennai and she has served the public as elected peoples representative of ward No.4. Because of the criminal complaint lodged against her, her social status has been lost. Therefore, the aggrieved person has now filed the private complaint in C.C.No.10609 of 2005, to prove her case that she is an innocent lady and is trying to restore her social status in the local area. Therefore, trial is absolutely necessary in the instant case. Hence, this Court is of the view that the grounds raised in the revision has no force to allow the same. This Court directs the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town to decide the case on merits, without being influenced by this Court's discussions, on the topmost priority basis.

5. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2006 in C.C.No.10609 of 2005, on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, dated 10.11.2006 is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.